Race Is Real, but not in the way Many People Think

How can there be a “white” Hispanic? Why is there a preponderance of “black” players in the NBA? Why is the infant mortality rate of blacks double that of whites in the USA?

I’ll give you a hint—it’s not about biology. In humans today there are not multiple biological groups called “races.” However, race is real and it impacts us all. What we call “race” are social categories. They play a role in our lives, histories and futures. We talk about race, or avoid talking about it, all the time…but few of us really stop and think about what race really is, and importantly, what it is not.

There is currently one biological race in our species: Homo sapiens sapiens. However, that does not mean that what we call “races” (our society’s way of dividing people up) don’t exist. Societies, like the USA, construct racial classifications, not as units of biology, but as ways to lump together groups of people with varying historical, linguistic, ethnic, religious, or other backgrounds. These categories are not static, they change over time as societies grow and diversify and alter their social, political and historical make-ups. For example, in the USA the Irish were not always “white,” and despite our government’s legal definition, most Hispanics/Latinos are not seen as white today (by themselves or by others).

This is a difficult concept and it seems to come up again and again, so let me provide a few points to bust the myth and to clarify the reality…

There is no genetic sequence unique to blacks or whites or Asians. In fact, these categories don’t reflect biological groupings at all. There is more genetic variation in the diverse populations from the continent of Africa (who some would lump into a “black” category) than exists in ALL populations from outside of Africa (the rest of the world) combined!

There are no specific racial genes. There are no genes that make blacks in the USA more susceptible to high blood pressure, just as there are no genes for particular kinds of cancers that can be assigned to only one racial grouping. There is no neurological patterning that distinguishes races from one another, nor are there patterns in muscle development and structure, digestive tracts, hand-eye coordination, or any other such measures.

Even something thought to be so ubiquitous as skin color works only in a limited way as dark or light skin tells us only about a human’s amount of ancestry relative to the equator, not anything about the specific population or part of the planet they might be descended from.

There is not a single biological element unique to any of the groups we call white, black, Asian, Latino, etc. In fact, no matter how hard people try, there has never been a successful scientific way to justify any racial classification, in biology. This is not to say that humans don’t vary biologically, we do, a lot. But rather that the variation is not racially distributed. If you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself by having a look at some of the references below. Seriously, there are no biological races in humans today, period.

Why is busting this myth of a biological basis of race important in a blog for Psychology Today? Because, if you look across the USA you can see that there are patterns of racial difference, such as income inequalities, health disparities, differences in academic achievement and representation in professional sports. If one thinks that these patterns of racial differences have a biological basis, if we see them as “natural,” racial inequality becomes just part of the human experience (remember a book called The Bell Curve?). This fallacy influences people to see racism and inequality not as the products of economic, social, and political histories but more as a natural state of affairs.

While race is not biology, racism can certainly affect our biology, especially our health. Recent work has clearly demonstrated that racial social structures, from access to health care to one’s own racialized self-image, can impact the ways our bodies and immune systems develop. This means that race, while not a biological unit, can have important biological implications because of the effects of racism. This is extremely important for those of us interested in cognition, development, education, and health; anyone who wants to use knowledge to make a difference in their own and in others’ lives. Solutions to racial inequalities and the problems of race relations in the USA are not going to emerge as long as a large percentage of the public holds on to the myth of biological races.

There is no inherently biological reason that most starting running backs in the NFL are black or most CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are white. Nor is there a “natural” explanation for why race relations are often difficult, but there are lots of interesting social, political, psychological, and historical ones. Go find out what they are, and bust some myths for yourself.

But what do I say when my racist friends ask why the finals of the Olympic 100 meter dash always consist of 8 black men? It's not just in racist American, you know. The fastest man in England, the fastest man in Canada, and the fastest man in France are always black, too. Why is that? Surely the Russians have tried to produce a champion sprinter. Surely the Chinese and Germans have tried. So, why do we see nothing but blakc men in the Olympic sprint finals every four years?

I tell my racist friends there's no reason that there shouldn't be dozens of white cornerbacks in the NFL. But what do I say when they point out there are ZERO white NFL cornerbacks? I've tried to tell them it's because black kids ore poorer and see sports as their ticket out of poverty... but that only explaisn why they dominate football as a whole, NOT why they dominate all positions that emphasize speed.

Tell them that is a product of the moment of time we live in. If you went back to the 1930s basketball was dominated by Jewish players. Also, sprinting world records were held by germans, italians and other "whites". At the present moment, people of color invest their time and effort in running and playing sports like football and basketball. But if this is because there was a physical genetic advantage, wouldn't they be dominating other sports like tennis (I know the williams sisters, but think generally), soccer, volleyball, rugby, hockey, etc.. all of these sports require speed, strength and endurance just like basketball, football and running. But certain groups invest time and effort in certain sports. For example, we are seeing a rise in Eastern European (and other foreign) basketball players. Certain countries like Serbia and Croatia have promoted basketball so players there invest time and effort and become good. The reason that certain groups invest time and effort is social; it might be a belief in their own ability because of stereotypes or the media, it might be that opportunity is limited because economics or other cultural capital.

I think this article is disingenuous and does a disservice to us all. The author is saying that race is real but that biologically we are all homo sapiens. That is a contradiction! By definition race means we vary genetically. There is no variation that allows people to be grouped by race. In fact two very different looking people such as Michael Jordan and George Bush might share more genetic material than say MJ and Kobe Bryant.

1. The basketball example overlooks that they were not competing against blacks in the 1930's so of course other groups dominated.

2. There is variation that allows people to be grouped by race - read some papers by Neil Risch, the 2004 winner of the Curt Stern Award, for outstanding contributions to genetics over the previous 10 years. As Risch writes:

Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level."

The fact is there is a difference. Those of African decent have subgroups within Africa that have inherated fast twitch muscle fiber. This is a trait not present in most of European heritage. Also look at the muscular thigh and thin calf. To say there is no difference is not an honest statement. Your observation that there are zero white, (or asian) cornerbacks in the NFL speaks this obvious truth.

To say that race and ethnicity has no biological basis is well intentioned but wrong. You might as well say there is no such thing as population biology. If there were no biological basis to race, then people who identify themselves as African American or Chinese would be no more likely to have certain genes than people who identify themselves as Native American. But that is not true. As demonstrated by Neil Risch and others, if you know what race people call themselves, you have a much better than chance probability of being able to guess what gene variants they likely have. Saying that there is no gene that is unique to one race or that there is no race that is pure and completely genetically isolated are straw men--no one is saying that. But to say that what people commonly call race provides no information about underlying biological differences among self-identified populations is just wrong. it would be nice if it were so, because then we could scientifically kill off all racism, which is the admirable impetus that propels this sort of argument. But you have to go where the science tells you, no matter what the result. Self identified racial grouping can tell us something about medical risks, and can help us make better decisions about medical treatments and lifestyle choices as long as people are also well aware of the limitations of such information.

Sorry Mr. Vaughn, but would you be willing to turn your hypothesis around and if I gave a genetic code for an individual, would you give me a race to go with that person? How about if I gave you a blood sample? No you would not. Race can't be defined that way. You are confusing people and perpetuating one of the most harmful myths in human history.

If you read the study he linked to you would realise that the answer is, yes you can.

From the abstract of Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies

"We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic
population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure
Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African
American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States
and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed
near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/
ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On
the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within
each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/
ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.
Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed."

So in short, according to this study, self-identified race corresponds with 'genetic race' approximately 99.86% of the time. When considering that anywhere from 1% to 0.1% of all children born can be considered as intersex (it depends on the definition of intersex used), then you should be arguing that sexes don't exist much much earlier before you start arguing that races don't exist, (and remember I said sexes not gender here. Sexes.)

You are simply wrong. The race of an individual can be determined from any sample containing DNA. Police do it all the time with human remains as well as samples of hair, blood, semen, whatever. Hair samples were classifiable for race even prior to genetic testing, as were bones--especially skulls.

CVaughan seems to turn the argument on its head, and in at least on place is quite wrong. When you say that "no one is saying" that races might be genetically isolated, I beg to differ. Perhaps among anthropologists, biologists, etc this might be true, but if you ask the stranger off the street you might get a completely different response. Second, I think the author is making the point that there certainly is no single gene that everyone in one "race" has this variant of and everyone in another race has a different variant of. I think the author is making the point that there is no litmus test for race in a biological sense. As far as the differential rate of diseases and conditions, the author makes the point that these in fact can be explained and predicted more accurately by using history and social factors rather than "race".

Tom,
I agree I'm talking as if the conversation is among scientifically minded people and not the man in the street. You will get all sorts of dreck if you ask the general public about race. Agustin makes valid points about the social construction of the idea of race, but my point is that he goes too far when saying that there is zero biological basis for race. There are biological differences that tend to cluster in groups that people identify by race or ethnicity. I think if he sticks with the statement "There absolute biological test that reveals race" he is on safe ground. But to say there is zero biological basis to race is clearly wrong.
The argument that there is no single gene restricted to an individual race and therefore there is no biological basis for race is like saying that there is no such thing as blond hair because there are in fact many variations to hair color and there is no defined shade where hair color changes from blond to brown. It is true that there is no Platonic ideal that represents "blond," but it is another thing to argue that, in a general sense, blonds don't exist or are completely a social construction.

Thanks for so quickly reading and commenting on my post, I sincerely appreciate it. Your points are an important part of the dialogue…one that is all too often swept under the rug. Because of limited space and time I’ll only respond very briefly and suggest that you read the excellent references I listed as they directly address the questions you have (also, if you are interested, check out my upcoming book as it has a 20,000 word version of the above ~900 word post). Part of the problem is in the terminology…so please realize that I am not arguing that all humans are the same, just that the groups we call “races” are not biological units and that there is no testable and verifiable biological definition of race that has been supported for the categories “black,” “white,” “Asian.” Also, ethnicity and race are not at all interchangeable, even though many use them that way…maybe that will be an upcoming blog.

The sport issue is everyone’s favorite…but let me ask it a different way…why are nearly all CEOs of top corporations in the USA white? The answer requires the same types of info to the “why are there so many blacks in some sports” question. It is not simple, it is not just a blanket “culture” answer, it is really, really complicated. But it is not because of biological differences between blacks and whites as groups. If it were, then the more than a century of research trying to find those patterned differences would have produced something that holds up to scientific analyses; it hasn’t.

I can say that there is no biological basis for race because I mean that there are NO consistent, quantifiable, biologically meaningful facets that DEFINE the categories “black,” “white,” and “Asian.” I am not saying that there are not characteristics like skin color, hair patterns, etc… that are, on average, different between members of those groups in the USA. However, those patterns of difference DO NOT hold up as defining characteristics if you look at multiple populations across the planet, or our whole species. Remember, the USA contains only a very small amount of the world’s human variation…and that variation has been shaped and clustered by social and historical forces.

One final note: please do the reading on this…there are so many misconceptions that I (and others) write whole books just to try and set the record strength with actual data. Take sickle-cell anemia for example. It is not characteristic of people of African descent in general, it is found in many human populations but in much higher frequencies in people living in, or descended from, some west African populations , some Arabian peninsula populations, some populations from South Asia, and a close genetic variant is found in some populations in the Mediterranean region.

I apologize for going longer than I intended, but check out the references and delve into this topic. Being human is really complicated, but it is also really interesting, much more so than we think.

What you have argued is (1) that "the groups we call “races” are not biological units" and (2)that the mean differences in traits such as general intelligence between the groups we call "races" are not genetically conditioned. Your evidence for (2) was (1), yet it's obvious that(2) doesn't follow from (1). And (2) was the point of your article. To Quote you: "Why is busting this myth of a biological basis of race important in a blog for Psychology Today? Because, if you look across the USA...." You are invalidly moving from race doesn't have a "biological basis" to race differences don't have a "biological basis."

In this comment, you graciously offer additional evidence for (2):
"If it were, then the more than a century of research." Since you are making a claim about causality, why don't you cough up some evidence for the absence of genetic differences that "holds up to scientific analysis." In face of entrenched resistance,it has taken a century of research to firmly establish the differences in general mental ability between Black and Whites. With neuroimaging, the physiological basis of this difference is slowly being established. We are now left with determining the extent to which this physiological difference is genetically conditioned. Of course, this could be readily done (e.g., through admixture mapping), but team "anti-race" has neatly place a de facto ban on such research.

While you CAN correctly say that the "three races" subgrouping is inaccurate, you cannot say race does not exist and there is no biological basis for it.

Ashekenazi Jews have a disease only present in their sub-group. Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants, even when highly educated, fall behind on IQ tests. Slavic women (even 2nd generation migrants) are less prone to osteporosis.

Also, police DNA tests can tell you what race someone is. This means, on a biological level, SOMETHING is detectable.

Also, police DNA tests can tell you what race someone is. This means, on a biological level, SOMETHING is detectable.

Not just tests from law enforcement. In laboratories and forensic units all over the world, you can test an individual's ancestry and learn his race/ecotype/biogeographical group to a certainty of 1-1,000,000. Now, the reason I used two additional words for "race" just now is... well, it is mostly about semantics and conventions what to call the group. The observable groupings cluster the same way all by themselves (i.e nature) regardless of what term we might use.

So, either "race" has a very real biological meaning or it is an amazing coincidence that Sforza's "populations" group themselves almost exactly like Carelton Coon's "prime-racial groups". You really need to be a blind 'Boas/Montague'-champion if you run with it being a coincidence.

Finally, current DNA tests are (while accurately predicting race), too unsophisticated to be used to "disprove" it. Humans and chimpanzees share, according to the testing that "disproves race", 99.9% of our DNA. We're genetically even closer to gorillas.

Even when identical, genes mean different things. There is a polymorphism which, when present in a white person who gets HIV, slows down the virus' development. In a black person, it speeds it up. Regardless of all else, race can predict the outcome.

There is nothing racist about acknowledging differences in gene frequencies between different groups of people. In fact, the knowledge is very important medically. I honestly don't see what social scientists tend to find so upsetting about the biological fact that groups of genes tend to differ in frequency in people whose ancestors come from different geographical locations.

Perhaps something offensive is associated with the word "race," but it is the mind of the beholder. Everyone knows that not all blacks are identical and not all whites are identical. But to start saying that there are no genetic differences between blacks and whites on average is to deny reality. I don't mean to imply that the author is doing this, but I am telling you that psychologists and sociologists sometimes do. I actually had an education teacher claim to me in college that black skin is not genetic!

Additionally, if there is no such thing as race, why does random genetic crossover rarely cause significant differences between individual mixed-race children? Why is it that you can predict that a child of black+white heritage won't have the white parent's hair? Or that an oriental-asian+white will be tall? Random genetic crossover SHOULD make these predictions impossible, but you're more likely to be right if you guess a black+white child will have curly hair than a blonde+brunette child will be blonde.

This is a terrible article. It makes a bunch of very interesting assertions simply by, well, asserting them. I'd rather the author include a detailed discussion of at least one claim rather than simply refer the reader to take a "look at some of the references below." Also, the author doesn't even attempt to explain some of the paradoxes resulting from his opening statements and the rest of the article. For example, if race isn't a biological construct, why are there so many black players in the NBA? Shame on Psychology Today for allowing half of article to be published.

Hey, folks, this is not a terrible article. It makes certain point fairly well, but the point he is making has some flaws. The point he is making is that you can't biologically absolutely define a race, which is true. But then he says that our differences are equally distributed among races, which is, well--either not true or doesn't make any sense based on the first half of his argument. I mean, if you can't define a race, then how can you say differences are equally distributed among these undefinable groups? If, however, you say that our differences are equally distributed among different geographic and ethnic groups, that is plainly wrong. If you let people define their own race, then certain genes are going to be more common in them and other people who also define their race in the same category.

As for why more blacks are in the NBA, we really don't know any biological reason. Obviously, basketball is a much bigger thing in black communities and they work hard at it because it is one of the few paths to wealth in poor black communities. There can be lots of non-biolological reasons. To say categorically this is evidence of a biological basis for race is not factually supported at this time and is perilously close to many arguments racists make. In the 1930s, there were lots of Jews who were great basketball players (probably for many of the same social reasons as blacks today) and people suggested that Jews were genetically superior basketball players because they were naturally crafty and dodgy. That sounds silly now. You can't say whites have more resistance to HIV--you can only say that genes that confer resistance are more common in the caucasian group of European ancestry. Many white people will be less resistant to HIV than many black people.

Population genetics is all about probabilities--not broad categorical statements about individuals based on their associated group.

I didn't say white people IN GENERAL are less succeptible, I was merely pointing out how, when a white person has a SPECIFIC gene-combination (an over-simplification of "polymorphism") it slows down the pace at which HIV develops, whereas, when a black person has that same, IDENTICAL gene, it speeds it up. And nothing else affects this gene's interaction with HIV, only race. We can both share that same gene, but how it connects to other genes and interacts with our bodies is completely different.

I didn't say white people IN GENERAL are less succeptible, I was merely pointing out how, when a white person has a SPECIFIC gene-combination (an over-simplification of "polymorphism") it slows down the pace at which HIV develops, whereas, when a black person has that same, IDENTICAL gene, it speeds it up. And nothing else affects this gene's interaction with HIV, only race. We can both share that same gene, but how it connects to other genes and interacts with our bodies is completely different.

I wasn't saying whites are less succeptible, just that, if you take a white person and a black person who "share" the mentioned polymorphism and infect them both with HIV, it will develop faster than predicted in the black person and slower in the white person. No other factor alters this gene's behaviour and there aren't exceptions so far.

And, bearing this in mind, do we want to work on the exact same treatment for both these people's HIV? Race is a necessary medical tool, was my intended point. =p

The argument seems to come down to definitions. I would agree that there is no absolute biological definition of race. That is to say, there are not gene or genes that are always in a person regarded as being one particular race. Mr Fuentes takes that to mean there is no such thing as race. That is true as a sophisticated argument, just like the argument that there is no such thing as blond hair. After all, there is no gene or genes that all light-haired people have, and in fact no single tint of hair color that is the definition of blond--there are gradations, and no clear line between blond and brown.
But to argue that there is no such thing as blond hair is of limited use in the real world. Many people call themselves blond. They are likely to have certain genes, but no guaranteed to have them. In the same way, to say that there is no such thing as race is of little use in the real world, and actually is throwing out information that is useful.
If someone were to provide a genetic sequence, we would have a good chance of guessing what race they called themselves. We couldn't determine that with 100 percent accuracy, because there is no biological definition for race. But the fact that we would have much better than chance odds of making that conjecture says that there is a biological basis for the categories that we call race.
But I agree that we would be much better off if we dropped the racial categorization and talked more about ancestry and ethnic background.

This is a terrible article. Whether purposeful or not, it’s ripe with fallacies and falsehoods. Instead of going through the errors, I’ll just summarize the counter view in 20 points:

(1)There is a moderate amount of global, geographically distributed, human genetic variation.(2)The between population Fst value, which is a rough index of genetic variability, is between 0.05 and 0.15–which is typically interpreted as being a moderate magnitude (Wright, 1978).This means that between 10 to 35% of the genetic variability between individuals is between individuals of distant populations.(The genetic variability within populations is split between individuals and within individuals, owing to diploidity, so the ratios are 5% to ½(95%) and 15% to ½(85%), which come out to 10 and 35% respectively -- see: Harpending, 2002.) (3)Likewise, there is a moderate amount of genetically conditioned phenotypic variation. For example Relethford (2009), gives a craniometric Fst of 0.10.(4)To put these numbers into context, a variation of 10% between individuals of distant populations is equivalent to a standardized difference, assuming a normal distribution, etc, of 0.7. (5)A standardized difference of this magnitude is generally considered to be “large” in the social science. So, by the standards in the social science, we can say with confidence that there are moderate to large phenotypically relevant genetic differences between global populations. (6) It’s well known that a moderate to large portion of the variance in behaviors within populations is genetically conditioned. For example, genes explain maybe 75% of the within population variance in intelligence by adulthood. They also explain around 50% of the variance in criminality. (7) Given that genes explain a large portion of within population behavioral differences and given the point made in (5), we should not be surprised to find moderate to large behaviorally relevant genetic differences between global populations, especially given the relatively high levels of neurological differentiation. (Wu and Zhang (2011) note, for example, that: “In this study, we find that genes involved in osteoblast development, hair follicles development, pigmentation, spermatid, nervous system and organ development, and some metabolic pathways have higher levels of population differentiation.…Our analysis demonstrates different level of population differentiation among human populations for different gene groups. (“Different level of population differentiation among human genes”). (8) It so happens that members of racial categories in the US differ in their average global geographic ancestries. “Asians” in the US tend to have less African ancestry than African Americans or Blacks; “Whites” tend to have more West Eurasian ancestry than African Americans, and so on. “Blacks” tend to have less out-of-African ancestry than all other populations. (“Hispanic”, of course, is an ethnic not racial designation.) (9) We shouldn’t be surprised therefore, given (7), to find behaviorally relevant genetic differences between these populations. (10) Actually, we shouldn’t be surprised at this for a number of reasons. Even if there were no differences of the relevant kind between global populations, we should expect some between socially defined racial population in the US, as these populations are not random samples of global populations.

(Continuing)
(11) Whether or not race as socially defined in the US matches with “biological groupings” is absolutely irrelevant to this issue (7). (Social construction in no way implies a lack of genetic differences.) What is relevant is whether racial groupings have, on average, the same allele frequencies. Which we know that don’t, because of (8) and (10). (12) That said, there are human “biological groups” that can with reason be called races. Some “biological concepts” of race are: “geographic subspecies” (Mayr), populations with hereditary differences (Brues), “local breeding populations” ( Dobzhansky), and “ecotypes” (Coyne). There obviously are races by the hereditarian difference, breeding population, and ecotype concept. (13) Again, whether the socially defined racial population in the US are orthogonally related to these “biological groupings” is not relevant --- to points (7) or (12) taken individually. (14) As for geographic subspecies, Ernst Mayr’s definition of a “geographic race” or “a geographically defined aggregate of local populations which differ taxonomically from other subdivisions of the species” is commonly accepted. There is no set criteria for “differ taxonomically.” Typically the 75% rule (of thumb) is used, which is sometimes taken to means that 75% of one population differs from 97% of the others in the defining trait or set of traits and is sometimes taken to mean that you can distinguish 75% of one population from 97% of another based on some or some set of genetically conditioned phenotypic differences. Based on at least some interpretations of this 75% rule, geographic human populations “differ taxonomically.” (To note, by convention, species have either zero or two or more subspecies. A species can’t have one subspecies. So there can’t be “one human race.”). (15) To clarify this last point, trait differences are correlated. Looking at multiple traits allows one to accurately classify members into populations. Relethford (2009) tells us, for example,: “Using Howells’s six geographic regions and all 57 measurements, the overall rate of correct classification is 97% for male crania and 96% for female crania.. (16) Given 14, one can make a reasonable case for there being human subspecies. (Non-human classifications are a mess, so given the lax standards in place, making this case is not difficult.) (17) Going back to 13, there is, in fact, a significant correspondence between socially defined racial population in the US and the major geographic populations, which by 14, could reasonably be called subspecies (e.g., Tang et al. Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies. (18) So, on all points of your thesis needs to be rejected. To recapitulate: Socially defined racial populations in the US differ in the distribution of geographic ancestry. Geographic populations genetically differ, by the metrics used in the social sciences, to a moderate to large extent. In some instances there are large, as judged using the same metric, genetically conditioned phenotypic differences, for example dental and craniometrical differences. These geographic populations can reasonably be called races by Brues’, Dobzhansky’s, and perhaps Mayr’s biological race concepts. Regardless: Given the high within population heritability of behavioral traits, one should not be surprised to find moderate to large behaviorally relevant genetic differences -- it follows that one should be surprised to find such differences between socially defined racial populations in the US. Of course, to find these you have to look. (19) One can now through admixture mapping studies. In the case of general intelligence, whether such studies should be done was discussed in the 2009 Nature symposium: “Darwin 200: Should scientists study race and IQ?” (20) Because the morality and reasonability of such studies was discussed in such a prestigious genetics journal just a couple of years ago, and since no studies have since been forthcoming, we can safely conclude that this is a yet unresolved issue.

Agustín, when you wrote this, did you mean your arguments in earnest? One of your main conclusions was that the behavioral differences between US defined racial populations have no genetic basis. Your reasoning in support of this was: (1) There are, supposedly, no human biological groupings that match the term 'race,' (2) US defined races don't represent biological groupings, (3) Racial definitions in the US change, and (4) there is more genetic variation in Africa than out. Missing is evidence or reasoning that actually supports the conclusion, which concerns average genetic differences. You would agree that within US defined races a large chunk of the variance in behavior is conditioned by genes, no? And you would agree that US defined races differ, on average, genetically, no? (After all, we have neat maps of genetic differences, for example, in Zakharia, et.al. "Characterizing the admixed African ancestry of African Americans") What's the argument, then? (Hopefully, it's not the "too little" genetic difference argument.) What you need to show is that there an not the said genetic differences for the traits in question. You can show this, among other ways, through admixture mapping, structural equation modeling, adoption studies, or the new fangled Visscher heritability methodology. You can't show this through word games. If you had an iota of intellectual honesty, you would simply admit that this is a complex unresolved issue. That it could be resolved. And that, as testified by the arguments made in the Darwin 200 Nature symposium on this, it's not, and it's not because there is great concern about finding such difference. What's nauseating about this article is that you clearly recognize what's at stake -- it's an issue of culpability . (You make accusations yourself.) Yet you refuse to recognize the validity of the arguments of those we disagree with your judgment. You're like a tyrannical judge who denies the defense the right to question the evidence. This is perverse. What's more so is that you don't even recognize this. To make this simple: (a) Either you are inept or you know that a genetic causal explanation for the differences in question between the populations in question has not been ruled out. Presumably it is not the former. (b) You obviously recognize that this causal question (nature versus nurture) is tied to a moral question (not culpable versus culpable.) (c) So you recognize that the moral question has not been answered. (d) You must recognize that a correct determination of the moral question is itself morally important. It's an accurate determination of culpability. (e) Yet you go out of your way to grossly distort and misrepresent the case (just like your PsychToday buddies did with the Trayvon case.) This is morally sick. (I mean this sincerely.) Agustín, this is what I want, before I accept your claim that "disparities" are conditioned by injustices (i.e., that differences are due to the iniquity of some) -- I want proof that they are not conditioned by genetics. Above I listed ways of showing this.

I probably should elaborate on point (e). You are pointing to differences the causes of which I am agnostic about. You are claiming that these differences are due, to a significant extent, to injustice. This implies that some set of individuals are culpable for these difference. In short, you are accusing some set of individuals of iniquity. To justify your accusation, you argue (1) to (4) above, none of which logically address the issue. In fact, nothing you said addresses the issue. (The same can be said for Duster, Gravlee, Harrison, Hartigan, Jablonski, Long, Marks, Tattersal and DeSalle. None of what they said address the issue. The issue is very simple: (I) Genes explain a large portion of the within population variance for the traits in question; this makes genetic differences between populations a priori plausible. (II) US defined racial populations represent unrepresentative samples of global populations. (III) Global populations differ genetically (to a moderate degree). (IV) Therefore, the US defined population could differ genetically in the relevant traits, owing to differences between global populations or to unrepresentativity or to both.) Now, it's so manifest that none of what you wrote -- or those you cited wrote -- address the issue that you must recognize this; it's inconceivable that you made the above arguments in good faith. And yet you agree that the nature/nurture issue has important moral ramifications; it's hardly an issue deserving of jest. Now, imaginably you agree that coming to an accurate determination of culpability is important. So you would probably agree that engaging in obfuscation and sophistry is morally negligent when what's at stake is an accurate determination. And yet this is what you are engaging in. Why? My conclusion above was that you are morally ill -- you probably are suffering from some variant of cultural marxism. Another possibility is that you have simply convinced yourself that a genetic causal hypothesis is dead, that it's simply not plausible. Were this the case, you would believe that your determination is, necessarily, the True one. And since it's the True one, obfuscation and sophistry is not a problem. Indeed, you might be morally obliged to convince your readers (or students), by hook or crook, of what must be indubitable to you. Let me ask then: Do you consider a genetic hypothesis, such as offered in the Bell Curve, to be implausible? If not, why, given everything said above? To clarify, I'm not asking if you agree with it -- I know that answer -- but just whether you consider it plausible. And if not, why? I mean really --. (Shoot me an email if you don't feel like answering here).

The belief that human populations did NOT acquire identifiably distinct phenotypes, in terms of skin, eyes, hair, bones, etc., due to inheritance from ancestors who evolved in distinct regions of the world, is untenable in light of the latest science.

"Examined genetic and environmental influences on academic achievement in White or Black full or half siblings. Data were taken from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It was expected that the variances and covariances among 3 achievement tests would have the same structure across the 4 groups. This was confirmed by a quantitative genetic model that imposed equal factor loadings across groups. This best fitting model had 2 factors: a Genetic factor representing genetic variation and a Shared Environment factor representing environmental differences among families. Reading recognition, reading comprehension, and mathematics tests all loaded on the Genetic factor, but primarily mathematics loaded on the Shared Environment factor. The quantitative genetic model was next fit to the achievement test means. Its successful fit suggests that the genetic and environmental influences involved in producing individual variation were the same as those producing the group-mean differences. In this sample, genes accounted for 66–74% of the observed group difference in verbal achievement and 36% of the difference in mathematics achievement. Shared environment accounted for the remainder, 34% to 26% of the difference in verbal achievement and 64% of that in mathematics achievement."

Environmentalists, of course, can cite counter-evidence. And clearly the issue isn't settled. But that's the point. It isn't settled. And yet Agustin and Co. blather on and on about how it REALLY is, and that they know better because (enter specious argument.)

"Examined genetic and environmental influences on academic achievement in White or Black full or half siblings. Data were taken from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It was expected that the variances and covariances among 3 achievement tests would have the same structure across the 4 groups. This was confirmed by a quantitative genetic model that imposed equal factor loadings across groups. This best fitting model had 2 factors: a Genetic factor representing genetic variation and a Shared Environment factor representing environmental differences among families. Reading recognition, reading comprehension, and mathematics tests all loaded on the Genetic factor, but primarily mathematics loaded on the Shared Environment factor. The quantitative genetic model was next fit to the achievement test means. Its successful fit suggests that the genetic and environmental influences involved in producing individual variation were the same as those producing the group-mean differences. In this sample, genes accounted for 66–74% of the observed group difference in verbal achievement and 36% of the difference in mathematics achievement. Shared environment accounted for the remainder, 34% to 26% of the difference in verbal achievement and 64% of that in mathematics achievement."

Environmentalists, of course, can cite counter-evidence. And clearly the issue isn't settled. But that's the point. It isn't settled. And yet Agustin and Co. blather on and on about how it REALLY is, and that they know better because (enter specious argument.)